# It's official: Hillary lost MI, PA, WI by less than the Jill Stein vote in those states **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [December 13, 2016, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-hillary-lost-mi-pa-wi-by-less-than-the-jill-stein-vote-in-those-states/774628 "2016-12-13T18:26:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Corry\_El](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Corry\_El](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corry_El)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2016, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-hillary-lost-mi-pa-wi-by-less-than-the-jill-stein-vote-in-those-states/774628/221 "2016-12-20T19:11:07Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > 1. I’m confused: let’s assume that nearly all Jill Stein voters, had they not voted for her, would have voted for Hillary Clinton (an untested assumption, and probably unwarranted, > > 2. But there were many, many more people who voted for the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson. Now, if he hadn’t run, or if people who voted for him had listened to reason and voted for either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, can we not presuppose that the vast majority of them would have voted for Donald Trump? 1. I partly agree. One can’t assume nearly every Stein vote would have gone to Clinton, or moreover would have voted for anybody else at all, as some seem to. However there’s a very simple explanation why _most_ Stein voters would probably not have voted for Trump: Stein is green, small g; Clinton claimed to be green; Trump generally (give or take his self contradictions as on every other issue) said he was against green policies in favor of growth (as he claims it would be). 2. This I doubt more. I don’t see a comparably simple explanation why Johnson’s voters would mainly have gone for Trump otherwise. One can imagine such voters (libertarian leaning GOP’ers put off by Trump the man as well as his economic populism v Johnson’s laissez faire, but who would never vote Democrat). But you could as easily imagine the converse (Democratic leaning voters who couldn’t accept Trump but did not believe Hillary’s ethics problems were ‘manufactured by the hate machine’ etc.) or just generally libertarian leaning people who differ as to which major party infringes more on freedom (the Republicans socially v the Democrats economically). Anyway lots of 4 way v 2 way polls before the final stretch run seemed to show Clinton losing something around 1% net in 4 ways. 538 quoted this (maybe 1 or 1.5% against Clinton and you could see it eyeballing the various polls). IOW there was never any poll evidence Johnson was pulling votes mainly from Trump, and no reason to believe it ended up that way IMO. Probably, Stein hurt Clinton a little and Johnson was a wash, maybe Stein hurt Clinton a bit more than a little and Johnson Trump a little, but not much. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2016, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-hillary-lost-mi-pa-wi-by-less-than-the-jill-stein-vote-in-those-states/774628/222 "2016-12-20T19:16:32Z")
The idea that Hillary Clinton was a progressive was invented by her supporters in February to counter Bernie Sanders. That’s one reason you didn’t see her take a progressive stance on marijuana, because she wasn’t a progressive. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2016, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-hillary-lost-mi-pa-wi-by-less-than-the-jill-stein-vote-in-those-states/774628/223 "2016-12-20T19:27:16Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > The idea that Hillary Clinton was a progressive was invented by her supporters in February to counter Bernie Sanders. That’s one reason you didn’t see her take a progressive stance on marijuana, because she wasn’t a progressive. 1000% more progressive than Trump. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2016, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-hillary-lost-mi-pa-wi-by-less-than-the-jill-stein-vote-in-those-states/774628/224 "2016-12-20T20:27:52Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > 1000% more progressive than Trump. 1000% of zero is still zero. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2016, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-hillary-lost-mi-pa-wi-by-less-than-the-jill-stein-vote-in-those-states/774628/225 "2016-12-20T20:46:15Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Yes, I am surprised. I generally think poepel are rational. And given a choice between “cant win but supports my position 100%” vs "may win but supports me only 50%’ and “can win but will make my life a living hell on earth” I think rational people would go for the compromise. Except that the majority of voters are not making decisions about who to vote for in a rational evaluation of the comprehensive impact of the candidates’ positions. If they were, even irrespective of the possibility of winning, Clinton still comes out as pragmatically the best (or at least least worst) of [all of the candidates](https://youtu.be/k3O01EfM5fU). Even if you believe that Clinton is [“…the second-worst thing that can happen to this country…”](http://www.npr.org/2016/05/09/477339063/conservative-author-pj-orourke-reluctantly-backs-clinton) she is still the only candidate with sufficient practical experience and a detailed enough set of policy statements to even be able to assess how good of a president she would be. But many voters aren’t voting on policy, past performance, or even on personality; they’ve voting on some kind of nebulous ‘culture war’ bullshit that has been sold to them, and they’re willing to overlook that the candidates they’re embracing have neither the political chops nor any understanding of how the government operates to effect the supposed policies. That is the reality that has to be acknwoledge, and Clinton, by dint of entering a race with net negative public approval and carrying the hooks for accusations of scandal was fighting an uphill battle that should have rationally been a near-certain win for an actually appealing candidate. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2016, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-hillary-lost-mi-pa-wi-by-less-than-the-jill-stein-vote-in-those-states/774628/226 "2016-12-20T20:47:01Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > 1000% of zero is still zero. And your acid test (heh) of liberalism is one’s stance on marijuana? Are you one of those single-issue voters I hear about? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2016, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-hillary-lost-mi-pa-wi-by-less-than-the-jill-stein-vote-in-those-states/774628/227 "2016-12-20T20:56:42Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > 1000% of zero is still zero. Hardly. Hillarys position on college tuition and student loans are very close to Bernies. In fact most of her positions are fairly close. ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2016, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-hillary-lost-mi-pa-wi-by-less-than-the-jill-stein-vote-in-those-states/774628/228 "2016-12-20T21:16:21Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > The NRA is not pro-gun control. Just because they pushed for such things in the past doesn’t mean they are pro-gun control. The NRA deliberately misrepresents any attempt at gun control as gun confiscation, and rallies people against it. This is factually untrue if by ‘gun control’ you mean laws restricting firearm ownership, purchase, or use. They are and have been big supporters of gun control, in the form of background checks, restrictions on felons and severely mentally ill owning or acquiring guns, concealed carry licensing, firearms dealer licensing, and more. As recently as June of this year the NRA backed a major gun control bill, it’s not just something in the distant past. > [@](#): > > They risk losing everything if they honor gun control. Do you mean actual ‘mild’ to ‘moderate’ gun control, or do you mean a DC- or UK- style gun ban that you want to call ‘mild’? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2016, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-hillary-lost-mi-pa-wi-by-less-than-the-jill-stein-vote-in-those-states/774628/229 "2016-12-20T21:19:30Z")
> [@Pantastic](#): > > This is factually untrue if by ‘gun control’ you mean laws restricting firearm ownership, purchase, or use. They are and have been big supporters of gun control, in the form of background checks, restrictions on felons and severely mentally ill owning or acquiring guns, concealed carry licensing, firearms dealer licensing, and more. As recently as June of this year the NRA backed a major gun control bill, it’s not just something in the distant past. > > Do you mean actual ‘mild’ to ‘moderate’ gun control, or do you mean a DC- or UK- style gun ban that you want to call ‘mild’? That’s gun buyer control, not gun control. DC or UK bans are not mild. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2016, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-hillary-lost-mi-pa-wi-by-less-than-the-jill-stein-vote-in-those-states/774628/230 "2016-12-22T16:41:08Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > The issue is not that people who voted for Stein would have voted for Clinton. The issue is that there is no rational reason for them to have voted for Stein instead of Clinton, because Clinton gives them more of what they want, while Stein, who couldn’t win, gets them nothing. And Trump gets them the opposite, since Stein ran on the left This is exactly what Democrats told Bernie supporters. So we lined up behind Hillary and wtf happened? She lost. To a fucking orange on a bobblehead. > [@](#): > > The perfect can never be the enemy of the good. You are assuming that Hillary is good. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2016, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-hillary-lost-mi-pa-wi-by-less-than-the-jill-stein-vote-in-those-states/774628/231 "2016-12-22T16:42:10Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > It wasn’t a joke, and I didn’t think it was funny either. ObamaCare was sold to America on the back of a huge and oft-repeated lie: that if we liked our health insurance, we’d get to keep it. I REALLY liked my pre-ACA health insurance plan. Obama and the Dems wrecked that for me. > > And, from what I’ve heard, there’s at least a decent chance that Republicans will keep the guarantee-issue portion of the ACA, so I’m not sure **Translucent Daydream** needs to fret just yet. Keeping guarantee issue without keeping the mandate is a recipe for disaster. ---
**Author:** ![Corry\_El](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Corry\_El](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corry_El)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2016, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-hillary-lost-mi-pa-wi-by-less-than-the-jill-stein-vote-in-those-states/774628/232 "2016-12-22T21:20:43Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Keeping guarantee issue without keeping the mandate is a recipe for disaster. Yes obviously in terms of actual policy as distinct from political spinning. The reason various states’ ACA exchanges are entering the adverse selection death spiral is that the mandate isn’t strong enough to prevent the insured population from being significantly sicker than the eligible population. Higher costs drive out the healthy first, raise costs more, and so on. In case anyone thinks it’s a political debate whether that can happen, a number of states had gteed issue pre ACA. Their markets imploded. I live in one. Private insurance rates in NJ were 3-4 times as high as most states where ins co’s could price or decline coverage based on medical history. Now that differential has leveled out considerably. ACA premium subsidies (there were never state level subsidies in NJ to buy gteed issue insurance so that is a difference) might have proven enough to offset an ineffective mandate, but it doesn’t seem to be turning out that way. So people trying to find something which actually works and is politically feasible will have a heck of a time. Whereas political jib jabbers can still just say the ACA is working just great; or can say it’s terrible then pretend you can repeal just parts of it without the whole thing falling apart; or can just say ‘all we have to do’ is go to single payer, when the votes for that are light years from being there. ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2016, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-hillary-lost-mi-pa-wi-by-less-than-the-jill-stein-vote-in-those-states/774628/233 "2016-12-22T21:57:56Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > … > > You are assuming that Hillary is good. She’s just another of those “old white women” that you hate. Old white “second wave feminists”–as you stated to underline the misogyny. Yes, she is far better than Trump. You say you “lined up” behind her. Did you actually \*vote \*for her? ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2016, 11:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-hillary-lost-mi-pa-wi-by-less-than-the-jill-stein-vote-in-those-states/774628/234 "2016-12-23T11:16:02Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > The issue is not that people who voted for Stein would have voted for Clinton. The issue is that there is no rational reason for them to have voted for Stein instead of Clinton, because Clinton gives them more of what they want, while Stein, who couldn’t win, gets them nothing. And Trump gets them the opposite, since Stein ran on the left > > And their states were not remotely safe, so it wasn’t a state to try and get Stein the 5% needed to get the Green Party funding next year. > > The point is that we need to drive this lesson home. Voting third party only results in the viable candidate winning who you supported the least. Stein voters very much did help Trump win the White House. And while neither Clinton nor Trump are Green, Clinton was far, far closer. Clinton’s presidency would have guaranteed that progressive achievements would not be undone. > > I tried my best to explain the Supreme Court issue to Greens. And, while that was apparently enough for the White Evangelicals, the Greens didn’t seem to care. They just made up excuses. > > Unfortunately, I worry that only having stuff reversed like Roe v. Wade will actually wake these people up to reality. Even now, with Trump winning, I’ve seen them make excuses. And that should have been a nightmare scenario for them if they actually support the Green Party platform. > > The perfect can never be the enemy of the good. Not just Greens but centrist independent voters seemed to have voted with the assumption that if they don’t like the way the country is going in 4 years, they’ll just vote for someone else. Despite all of their professed insecurities about the economy and whatever else, a vote for Trump, underneath it all, reveals a rather strong sense of personal inoculation against the worst of Trump’s impulses and the political dynamics generated by his campaign. People who voted for Trump aren’t worried about racism – they don’t believe it’ll effect them. Despite all the bullshit they post on Facebook, they don’t believe the Obama economy is that bad. They just feel better that the country is being governed by a smarmy white male. They will have a lot of time to consider the costs of their vote. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2016, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-hillary-lost-mi-pa-wi-by-less-than-the-jill-stein-vote-in-those-states/774628/235 "2016-12-26T13:54:04Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > That’s gun buyer control, not gun control. BWAHAHAHAHA!! Oh, that’s great. OK, I now favor gun control: Question 1: How about a ban on open carry? Answer: Never. But that’s not gun control, that’s gun _carrying_ control. Question 2: Ok, then let’s enact a ban on magazine sizes. No one needs more than ten rounds in a magazine. Answer: Absolutely not. But that’s gun _magazine_ control, not gun control. Question 3: Well, then a ban on the mentally ill, if they’re a danger to themselves or others, buying guns? Answer: I think you know the answer to that. “That’s gun buyer control, not gun control.” Question 4: OK, at least can we ban any people of Scottish ancestry from buying guns? Answer: Sure. If they’re True Scotsman. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2016, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-hillary-lost-mi-pa-wi-by-less-than-the-jill-stein-vote-in-those-states/774628/236 "2016-12-26T14:34:11Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > You are assuming that Hillary is good. Yeah. A person who spent their whole life working in public service and for all intents and purposes had good, reasonable plans for how to move America forward. SPACE HITLER! ---
**Author:** ![Evan\_Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b487fb/32.png) [@Evan\_Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evan_Drake)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2016, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-hillary-lost-mi-pa-wi-by-less-than-the-jill-stein-vote-in-those-states/774628/237 "2016-12-26T17:11:33Z")
Working in public service generally means meagre monetary rewards for a life time’s selfless toil. Breaking down the claim, her ‘public service’ was government lawyer, president’s wife, congresswoman, secretary of state and eternal candidate. And an income of $10 million a year. In none of them was she more distinguished than other government lawyers, president’s wives, congress people, secretary of states, — and sometimes worse — most of whom in Washington are equally intelligent and capable, and far less rewarded, if without the inane self-belief that collapsed her campaign, and monotonous self-satisfaction and monomanical self-praise that drove her on her fatal course. The fact she lost to a \*Trump \*is just icing on the cake. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2016, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-hillary-lost-mi-pa-wi-by-less-than-the-jill-stein-vote-in-those-states/774628/238 "2016-12-27T01:51:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > BWAHAHAHAHA!! > > Oh, that’s great. > > OK, I now favor gun control: > > Question 1: How about a ban on open carry? > Answer: Never. But that’s not gun control, that’s gun _carrying_ control. > > Question 2: Ok, then let’s enact a ban on magazine sizes. No one needs more than ten rounds in a magazine. > Answer: Absolutely not. But that’s gun _magazine_ control, not gun control. > > Question 3: Well, then a ban on the mentally ill, if they’re a danger to themselves or others, buying guns? > Answer: I think you know the answer to that. “That’s gun buyer control, not gun control.” > > Question 4: OK, at least can we ban any people of Scottish ancestry from buying guns? > Answer: Sure. If they’re True Scotsman. Are you making fun of me, or the NRA? See the NRA feels if you have the right to buy a gun, you can buy any gun any time, and in any amount, and carry them in any jurisdiction, open or concealed. But they dont feel criminals should own guns. Thus, Gun Control is “bad” to them. Stopping Criminals or crazy people from buying guns is fine. So **according to the NRA** :ban on open carry?= No. ban on magazine sizes? =No. mentally ill? Well, maybe, but it depends. (really crazy people no, but veterans with PTSD? Maybe OK) So, yes, Virginia, there is a difference between Gun Control and Gun Buyer control. Perhaps not a clear difference, but it’s there. And by and large, even tho I despise the NRA, I dont have much issue with their gun control viewpoints. ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2017, 7:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-hillary-lost-mi-pa-wi-by-less-than-the-jill-stein-vote-in-those-states/774628/239 "2017-01-15T07:44:20Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Seriously? With all the insults that TinyHands leveled against everybody, “deplorable” is what you think people remember? It’s not the only thing people remembered, but somehow many of those small-to-middling conservative states seem to carry more weight in the EC, per popular vote cast. Trump’s insults and gaffes were offensive mainly to Democrats, who are either in solidly Democratic states that would have ended up awarding their votes to Clinton regardless, or else in conservative states that would gone to the Republicans regardless. ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2017, 7:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-hillary-lost-mi-pa-wi-by-less-than-the-jill-stein-vote-in-those-states/774628/240 "2017-01-15T07:59:54Z")
> [@desertmonk](#): > > Why do people assume that the Stein votes would have gone for Clinton? It’s much more likely that they would have stayed home if it was a choice between Trump and Clinton. I prefer to think that if anyone was so engaged as to consider voting for a third party would, in its absence, have made the rational decision to vote for Hillary, in this case–for all the reasons that have already been stated. I sometimes wonder if third party voters on the left like to imagine themselves in a European type parliamentary democracy in which splinter parties often get to play a pivotal role in national government, and may even score a ministry or two. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-hillary-lost-mi-pa-wi-by-less-than-the-jill-stein-vote-in-those-states/774628.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-hillary-lost-mi-pa-wi-by-less-than-the-jill-stein-vote-in-those-states/774628.md?page=13)